It is often said that an important security task when setting up a new WiFi router is to ensure that it is password protected so that only those who should be using the router can do so. In fact, some ISPs forbid the sharing of a router, although how they are meant to know what is authorised by the owner and what is not, is beyond me. We are warned of the danger that someone might download something illegal for which the owner of the router will take the blame. But there are some that believe this is the wrong approach to take.
Members of the "Open Wireless Movement," including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Free Press, Mozilla, and Fight for the Future are advocating that we open up our Wi-Fi private networks (or at least a small slice of our available bandwidth) to strangers. They claim that such a random act of kindness can actually make us safer online while simultaneously facilitating a better allocation of finite broadband resources.
The OpenWireless.org website explains the group's initiative. "We are aiming to build technologies that would make it easy for Internet subscribers to portion off their wireless networks for guests and the public while maintaining security, protecting privacy, and preserving quality of access," its mission statement reads. "And we are working to debunk myths (and confront truths) about open wireless while creating technologies and legal precedent to ensure it is safe, private, and legal to open your network."
One such technology, which EFF plans to unveil at the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE X) conference next month, is open-sourced router firmware called Open Wireless Router. This firmware would enable individuals to share a portion of their Wi-Fi networks with anyone nearby, password-free, as Adi Kamdar, an EFF activist, told Ars on Friday.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Leebert on Monday June 23 2014, @02:39PM
One of the few redeeming qualities of Comcast is that their Business Class service (which I have at home) actually gives you explicit permission to set up a public hotspot.
Comcast has sufficiently pissed me off that I keep meaning to improve its coverage and then encourage my neighbors to cancel their Comcast service to just use my hotspot.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday June 23 2014, @03:06PM
It's not just Comcast's Business Class service [soylentnews.org] anymore.
(Score: 3, Informative) by morgauxo on Monday June 23 2014, @03:31PM
Yes it is. What Comcast is doing has nothing to do with sharing one's connection freely.
The sharing your linked article is talking about is not open, it's only available for other paying Comcast customers to use. Also, it makes a separate connection. While it is still using the same cable line the bandwidth is separate from that which goes to the home user. It isn't a user offering part of their own internet connection so their neighbors don't have to subscribe. It's Comcast offering it's subscribers 'away from home' access using subscribers as hosts for their access points plus electricity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:44AM
I've seen it, and it sucks, and Openrouter firmware will probably suck too.
Mine aren't the usual complaints, where comcast customers think they are being leached by freetards (they aren't and so far no one has shown any vulnerabilities in Comcast's plan).
My complaint is that its pretty useless.
If you have a smartphone, and you start streaming a podcast or some music as you walk down the street, if you've ever once connected to Xfinity's open-wifi routers, your phone will jump from one to the next, as you approach each house, your stream will stop, you fiddle around and get it restarted, and 30 paces down the street if fails again. You are soon forced to shut down wifi and stream over cellular.
Its useless. WIFI does not support fast-seamless handoff like Cellular does. It never has.
So rather then providing a community good, Comcast is providing a community nuisance.
Unless you are perfectly stationary, hiding in the bushes outside your neighbor's house, you will never get a good signal. And if you do, take ten paces in almost any direction and its gone.
I've tried it. Its a mess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday August 06 2014, @02:46AM
I'm not sure how that makes it a nusiance. If you are going to be in one place for a while you have wifi available. If you are moving and streaming then you need to use cellular. If Comcast wasn't available then you would STILL need to use cellular. But then you would need to use it even when standing still. It may not be benefitting you due to the way you wish to use it but it certainly isn't hurting!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 06 2014, @03:49AM
Yes it is hurting. Reread what I posted.
If you ever once connect to one of these routers it will attempt to connect to everyone of them you pass.
It will constantly interrupt your connection till you turn off wifi. Then you forget it's off an burn through your data allowance.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:47PM
I did read it. I turn my wifi off when I don't want to use wifi and back on when I do. I don't think it is Comcast's fault if you can't be bothered to do that! Some people might actually want to use that service. Should they not have it just because you can't be bothered to control your own equipment?
Also, you say "If you ever once connect". So I guess your device is 'remembering' the connection. Before I assumed it was just set to connect to any open connection. If this is not the case, it is specifically 'remembering' Comcast's connection then the solution is even easier! Doesn't your wifi setup have an menu where it lists 'remembered' connections and gives you the option to 'forget' them? FCOL, quit whining and just delete that connection!
Sorry but I get rather irked when I see self-important people complain that they want things they don't use to go away with no regard for those who might actually want to use them. This is the same line of thinking that has already lead to the dumbing down of pretty much every piece of comercial software and even about 1/2 of open source.
"burn through your data allowance"
Really?!?! Why does a SN reader have a limited data allowance anyway? Consider your geek card revoked!
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Monday June 23 2014, @06:22PM
I too have Business Class Comcast at home. I run a very rarely used public hotspot, and I run a business where I often connect customer computers (infected and otherwise). Never have I had a problem until recently when comcast sent me a stern warning regarding torrenting Game of Thrones.
This used to not be an issue. If I fire up a customers PC and it starts bearsharing or limewiring whatever crap they had in their queue, I have no control over it except to firewall it, which I will not do. Are they now going to throttle or disconnect me like they would a residential customer?
This was not an error as the letter specifically stated home or business class internet.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday June 23 2014, @07:05PM
Interesting!
Do you have static IPs? IIRC the public wifi permission only pops in when you have static IPs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:04AM
And is Comcast or the EFF gonna pay your bail and lawyer's fees when some scumbum surfs CP on your connection? We have seen time and time again when it comes to CP the cops don't give a shit WHO they grab as long as SOMEBODY is grabbed. Even if you prove you are innocent you are still looking at bail and lawyer's fees and those add up REAL quick.
So go right ahead and open your WiFi to the world, just don't be surprised if you are woken up at 3AM by a SWAT team with M16s hogtying you.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:36AM
I'm aware of the risk. Thanks for making sure, though.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @03:00PM
From openwireless.org's FAQ:
Until I am not held responsible for other's actions, why would I risk my entire family's security?
I agree that if we lived in a country where this was approved by the powers that be, I'd be all for it. However our government disappears people they don't like, and going to prison virtually guarantees rape -- most USians find this so funny they joke about it constantly, and this is the kind of culture we're in. Combine that with the fact that even an allegation of wrongdoing destroys one's life, regardless of facts, convictions, appeals, etc.., and it's too dangerous, at least in this land of the free. I've lived in at least one other country where things were better in these regards, so I know things can be better.
The only folks I know of that are ensured they will not be held liable for the actions of others are corporations or government agencies with hotspots, not individuals with hotspots.
Also, why the firmware? Most routers allow multiple LANs with different security policies, no? Mine does, and it's not that modern. I'm not sure putting efforts towards firmware development is the best effort. Everyone I know who doesn't do this, doesn't do it due to legal liability reasons, not because their router lacks the ability.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Monday June 23 2014, @03:09PM
They don't think so? I don't think OpenWireless.org is going to be funding your legal battles against content providers who have built their entire litigation business model on an IP address == a specific individual.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @03:20PM
The EFF may well be looking for test cases to work towards eliminating bad precedents and other legal worries. Raise the bar for legal accusations and even the evidence required to get a search warrant. The ridiculous nonsense of the last several years involving IP addresses is just absurd. Trouble is that once the bar is raised enough then the demand to create and force the use of individual personal identifiers for all will increase.
In the beginning the Internet was stated again and again as only being suitable for the free exchange of FREE information. We should have just acknowledged that truth and continued on, unfortunately that was not the case.
(Score: 3) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 23 2014, @03:26PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by isostatic on Monday June 23 2014, @03:54PM
You're already lost if MPAA, GNAA, RIAA etc take you to court. You have two options
1) Be David in David vs Goliath
2) Not share your wifi and not worry about being David
Sure, you might win as David, but you certainly won't lose by staying at home and being "normal"
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Monday June 23 2014, @04:30PM
This is simply not true, on multiple levels.
This is a terrible legal advice, and it runs contrary to what the EFF lawyers are saying. It has been pointed out that sharing your wifi will probably help you to reduce your liability once the push comes to shove.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Monday June 23 2014, @06:13PM
Basically, nut up, take a stand, and attempt to enjoy power and safety through numbers.
I'm running guest wireless right now that in no way puts my LAN at risk. Of course, my router is significantly above grade with enterprise features to enable guest wireless in a corporate office. I have a landing page that you must acknowledge first. Not all that much different than the free wireless I've experienced in airports, hotels, etc.
Bandwidth is something I own. I paid for it. At this point in society it's no different than offering water in terms of hospitality. I would argue that it's my right to offer guests in my home, and on my property, some free bandwidth to conduct their affairs in a limited fashion. That's why those features exist on my commercial grade router in the first place.
Arguments about encouraging piracy and crime are beyond ridiculous. If a thief or murderer stopped by my home and asked for a glass of water, am I an accessory to their crimes by giving them some water? Of course not. Hospitality should not be criminalized.
It bugs me to end when "cowards" complain that they are going up against the government and could lose something. So? You shouldn't be afraid of your government, and if you end up being the target, there *WILL* be others rallying to your defense. It's one of the best things you could do for your country and freedom, is to join that fight. What did you really do? "I was hospitable and shared some of my resources to a stranger". Yeah, that's going to go real far in court and the court of public opinion will be on your side.
Take a stand people. Sharing bandwidth with strangers is a right. It may not be enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, but we all damn well know it's a right to be hospitable to your neighbors and strangers.
Stop being selfish bastards with bastard filling. If we all dedicated 20% of our bandwidth to a network like TOR, guess what would happen? TOR WOULD FARKING WORK. We could have decent pseudo-anonymity at least from Big Data.
Enjoy your freedom now, even if you have to take it by force, less you have no freedoms tomorrow, and even less the next day.
The "cowards" sit in their homes watching cyberspace contract, be more controlled, have less privacy, and turn into nothing more than a glorified mall. Yet, they think staying quiet in their homes and not rocking the boat is going to somehow lead towards more security and better lives for their families. It won't. They will be the families that survive to be sure. Congrats to them. I'd love to survive long enough to live in a police state where corporations control all the aspects of my life and I'm nothing more than a resource production unit. Yay. I was right. I survived. Yay.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @06:44PM
(emphasis mine)
You really want to be the test case for this? Let's see how your liability is reduced and how the EFF lawyers defend you when you get accused of downloading child porn[1] just because someone else used your open WiFi to do it.
So liability merely being _reduced_ (and "probably") is not enough to make me share my WiFi with strangers. I don't want to be lynched for what some random stranger did.
[1] I use this example because it seems whenever child porn is mentioned almost everyone turns their brains off and switches to lynch mob mode. There are videos on youtube and elsewhere of people getting killed, some sick person might get off on them and most of us find that disgusting and scary, but as long as he doesn't actually do anything illegal to anyone else should we jail him for it?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday June 23 2014, @06:26PM
You mean "lose anything other than the right to be innocent until proven guilty".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:51AM
I like your reference to this...
You know, ol' David was a shepherd boy, trying to keep determined hungry predators away from his sheep. He knew a thing or two about the directed kinetic energy he could accurately deliver over a distance by slinging a rock. ( Geektalk for he was very good in the use of a slingshot and what its capabilities are ).
Now, ol' Goliath was big and muscley, and carried a big stick with quite a limited range. He had everyone intimidated because if he ever laid hands on them, he'd rip them apart.
I'm sure ol 'David had killed plenty of wolves. He had a pretty good idea what happens when a rock traveling at velocity hits a skull. I an sure he had seen many times the result of his work, and had finely honed his aim and technique so he didn't waste any more time than was necessary to deal with the ones threatening his sheep. I would imagine David got quite good at it, as keeping a pack of hungry predators away from a flock of sheep probably provided nightly target practice.
I would think to him, Goliath was just another big wolf, with a shatterable head. Just like any other animal that threatened his sheep.
He had technology and knew how to use it.
Having a gun makes all the difference when you have a bear after you.
My take is that David had already sized up Goliath and knew exactly where he wanted to pop him with a rock.
And he did.
This has gone on through all of recorded history. Cunning outdoes brute strength. In a way, "the pen is mightier than the sword", but it still takes whatever force it takes to overcome the "enemy", as once you no longer have the means to back up your pen, your fortune will be allocated amongst others. The results of war is all over the Bible and other historical accounts. Ownership of wealth is a fleeting illusion, and its under your control only as long as you ( or your "gang" ) has the power to defend your "rights" to it.
Now, speaking as an American, this is one thing that concerns me greatly about us. It sure looks to me like we are setting ourselves up for a fall by being such as ass, trying to pander to the international 1%'ers.
I daily witness people being unbelievably rude to others who cannot defend themselves... and somehow think God is on our side?
I suspect all this snooping and monitoring is mostly efforts by the elite to quickly isolate dissent, just as the rest of us quickly put out a fire. Things are heating up, and fires become more and more likely to spontaneously erupt - and if one does not have the hardware to address the fire, all the "wealth" goes up in flames.
Nothing new. The Bible is full of this. Things were far more elusive and ephemeral back then. More Kings and Smiting than I can count. All written from the perspective of those who survived to tell the tale.
I know this is very offtopic, but what I typed was a few of the things that made quite an impact on my worldview.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 23 2014, @03:20PM
The legal liability in the US is nil, though it would behoove you to register as a DMCA service provider agent if you're going to do this on an ongoing basis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday June 23 2014, @03:24PM
How'd you work that one out?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 23 2014, @03:29PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Monday June 23 2014, @04:59PM
thats true for corporations, but do you really think it'd hold up for a private citizen? there's lots of precedent that what holds true for "people" with lots of money doesn't hold true for everyone else.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @05:45PM
Check your EULA, guy already said it was good for business class with comcast. So you're considered an intermediary service provider in that case, but if you only had personal class service it would be in violation of the EULA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @07:14PM
I pay attention to that
Is there any evidence that e.g. Starbucks or McDonald's has been prosecuted|sued recently for the actions of users who were acting via the publicly-available access?
How about a Mom & Pop coffee shop or burger joint?
Individuals?
Most circuits now have precedent set
You seem to be saying the answer to whether there have been recent legal cases is NO and that it would be logical to extrapolate from that lack of recent data points.
The AC who thought that EFF's campaign might be to spur a test case was interesting.
You seem to be saying that for most appellate courts this is old hat|settled law and all that remains is for the wisdom of the "progressive"|modern circuits to be embraced by the few remaining circuits that haven't yet fully acknowledged the memes of the 21st Century.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 23 2014, @08:32PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ken_g6 on Monday June 23 2014, @05:58PM
What's needed to avoid any chance of legal liability is a router that sends public guest traffic over the TOR network. Considering the EFF's close affiliation with the TOR project, you'd think they would be working on this, but I don't see any mention of it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by cyrano on Monday June 23 2014, @09:16PM
Have a look at MaidSafe
http://maidsafe.net/ [maidsafe.net]
Tor has a tremendous latency and as such is hardly usable for anything like video or screen sharing. And it's traceable if you even think workaround.
And some Tor exit points seem to belong to NSA and friends.
Maidsafe is not traceable. There's no centralized server to authenticate or hide you. Only the network itself knows you. And the network only consists of your peers.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @11:01PM
> Have a look at MaidSafe
>
> http://maidsafe.net/ [maidsafe.net]
I went to that page. It was blank. I guess that was because I use noscript and requestpolicy and they have dependencies on sites like gstatic.net
So I don't really know anything about the project except that they can't even walk-the-walk of the most basic internet privacy guidelines by building a dependency on google and mandating javascript. Whatever their project, no way I can take them seriously because they are naifs.
(Score: 1) by cyrano on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:32PM
Thanks for making my day. Haven 't laughed that hard since a couple of days ;-)
You could try maidsafe.org, but they just might be living in the 21st century too.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01 2014, @05:49AM
> Thanks for making my day. Haven 't laughed that hard since a couple of days
Someone talks about TOR -- a project dedicated to maximizing the security of its users, so much so that they have a custom-build of firefox dedicated to the project -- and your response is to offer up some half-assed security website instead?
I'm not laughing, I'm crying that such incompetence is what passes for good security design. No wonder the internet is a mass of exploits and vulnerabilities. NSA, Big Data, etc are constantly in the news and yet you are not only clueless, you are fucking smug in your ignorance. Pride goeth before the fall dickhead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday June 23 2014, @04:02PM
This doesn't make much difference because they will get you through your ISP. There is already language in most ISP contracts that prevents you from sub-letting your bandwidth, some ISP contracts also prevent you from sharing your bandwidth (at least on residential connections). The minute "open" connections become too popular you bet your ass ISPs all over the world are going to do something about it.
Doesn't anyone get the pattern yet? The problem isn't the router, it's the damned oligopolies that provide the internet access. The only thing that would work is "open" ISPs, or some sort of open mesh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @04:13PM
> The minute "open" connections become too popular you bet your ass ISPs all over the world are going to do something about it.
On the other hand, if it gets "too popular" they might lose that fight. The public sucks at fighting for something they have no experience with, but try to take something away from them and people get pissed. There is only one guarantee in life - if you don't try you are guaranteed to fail.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Monday June 23 2014, @04:17PM
"they might lose that fight."
I guess I am a lot more cynical than you are :) I think the machine can only be smashed in the end-game not changed into something else. Then maybe the people will have a little power and freedom for a while - but with all the stuff that comes with freedom until it all starts again. That's the story of humanity.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @04:52PM
> I think the machine can only be smashed in the end-game not changed into something else.
I used to think that way when I was a teenager because it is appealing simple due to being black and white. And then I realized that is the cycle of revolution which is what our constitution was designed to avoid, and that those who believe in a smashing end-game are just ceding the power of democracy to the plutocrats.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Monday June 23 2014, @08:12PM
The boom bust cycle among nations is far, far older than your constitution or even the concept of democracy. There will always be plutocrats, whether you call him King or Emperor or Lord or CEO. Humans are designed to follow leaders because they are too lazy to deal with the big picture for themselves. They'd rather focus on the day to day minutiae of their lives. So the plutocrat will always arise with a gun or a ballot box, and take the power that is freely available to him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @10:52PM
> The boom bust cycle among nations is far, far older than your constitution or even the concept of democracy.
Even so, our constitution is an attempt to stop the cycle of revolution, or at least reduce the frequency as much as possible like the way vaccinations are not perfect but they have saved millions of lives. But you appear to be one of those lazy people happy to hand their power over to the plutocrats so I don't think this argument will go much further.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Monday June 23 2014, @05:13PM
as a matter of policy, i used to have my wifi router unencrypted to provide access to anyone who wanted it, because i know i've used other people's wireless quite often and i'm often very thankful that they've left it open. however i had to disable that and set a password because for at least a week straight before i did, i had so little bandwidth available to myself that i couldnt even use irc without lag, and couldn't even access the web at all.
one thing this firmware absolutely needs is a way to set bandwidth either per connection, or a way to set a specific share of bandwidth to a MAC address, because there's no point in having an open connection if its not actually available to more than one person, to the point where even the person paying for the bandwidth cant use it.
i've also heard scare stories about people logging on to somebody else's wifi, and dumping stuff on the owner's computer since they had it set to share over the network; no idea if its true or not, but scare stories like that will also affect people's willingness to open their router, especially if say they have all their media shared over the network so they can view it through their xbox or playstation on the other side of the house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @05:43PM
> i've also heard scare stories about people logging on to somebody else's wifi, and dumping stuff on the owner's computer since they had it set to share over the network;
This firmware puts all traffic on the "open" SSID outside the firewall. Perhaps someone will find an exploit that lets them hop the firewall, but the design is to prevent that sort of access. Many (most?) modern routers have the ability to put the guest network outside the firewall too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Konomi on Monday June 23 2014, @05:19PM
This would work so well in Australia and other such countries where finding an uncapped plan is nigh impossible. I'm obviously going to set up an open wifi so I can be on the slowest speeds within days or a week.
(Score: 1) by cyrano on Monday June 23 2014, @09:23PM
True, but easily fixed in the router.
Lots of people have a quota, but don't use it all. So you could sell it as a way to get back at your ISP without breaking the rules. I have a 200 GB monthly quota, but almost never use more than half of it. Most months I only use about 25%
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @10:47PM
Uncapped plan? TPG $70 a month DSL2. It is on their homepage http://www.tpg.com.au/ [tpg.com.au]
Whirlpool search fu failed you today?
(Score: 2) by Konomi on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:23AM
TGP is known for having bad network quality, and I said nigh impossible not impossible I am aware there is one provider, maybe two but I've only ever heard of anyone besides TPG.
Maybe your english skills failed you?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by monkey999 on Monday June 23 2014, @10:53PM
The authorities would like every act online to be traceable to an individual who can then be held responsible for it.
Freedom of speech (FoS) means freedom from punishment because of your speech. The Soviets used to have a joke "everybody in Russia is free to say what they like - they're just not free to stay out of prison afterwards."
The only way to guarantee FoS is anonymity. The gov't can't punish you if they can't find you. Which is why dictatorships [yahoo.com] hate [independent.co.uk] online anonymity.
Even if it was true that you could be held responsible for things others do using your router, you'd still have a duty [squte.com] to let them do it.
IANAL but AFAIK there is no legal basis in either the UK or US to punish someone for enabling someone else to commit a crime, unless it was part of a deliberate conspiracy, or 'common purpose'. So, (if its true at all that this is 'dangerous') the authorities are trying to illegally blackmail people into supporting their unconstitutional attempt to destroy anonymous Internet access.
Don't submit to this blackmail. Keep your country free, Keep your WiFi free.
(Score: 0, Troll) by DNied on Tuesday June 24 2014, @04:06PM
This is just laughable. If you need to hide to get your freedom of speech, you're just acknowledging and accepting the lack of freedom of speech.
You don't fix problems by hiding. Don't think yourself a revolutionary: You're just hiding behind someone else's IP.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by monkey999 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:58PM
Excellent. I try to please.
So, if you need to do X to get Y, then after you've done X and got Y you haven't 'really' got Y?
Obviously it would be better if no government ever tried to restrict anyone's freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that by recognising they do, and stopping them succeeding, you're accepting it.
If that were true there'd be no point stopping anything bad happening - like wearing a seat belt to stop yourself dying in a car accident - because then you'd be 'acknowledging' car accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypsis [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by hopp on Tuesday June 24 2014, @04:44AM
So does old OS router firmware.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:11PM
I've been saved a number of times when in a strange place away from home by using someone's wireless access point to find out where I was supposed to be going.
In the old days, before setting passwords became a widespread practice I'v occasionally used a neighbour's wifi to help diagnose occasional problems with my own connectivity.
Enough that I keep my wifi access point open as a policy. There's no password on it, and that's the way I like it.
My neighbour came to me one day and apologised. I seems that his daughter had been using my wifi by mistake instead of his to access the internet. I said good. That's why I keep it open, so people, yes even his daughter, could use it when she needs it. He said he never heard of such a thing.
In fact, I'd even be happy if she were to use my printer in times of need, as long as she told me what to do with the printouts.
-- hendrik